Cargando…
Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513891/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556 |
_version_ | 1783250731313135616 |
---|---|
author | Fang, Shirong Yang, Jinhong Song, Lei Jiang, Yan Liu, Yuxiu |
author_facet | Fang, Shirong Yang, Jinhong Song, Lei Jiang, Yan Liu, Yuxiu |
author_sort | Fang, Shirong |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs). METHODS: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSION: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5513891 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55138912017-07-25 Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy Fang, Shirong Yang, Jinhong Song, Lei Jiang, Yan Liu, Yuxiu Patient Prefer Adherence Original Research BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs). METHODS: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSION: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process. Dove Medical Press 2017-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5513891/ /pubmed/28744109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556 Text en © 2017 Fang et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Fang, Shirong Yang, Jinhong Song, Lei Jiang, Yan Liu, Yuxiu Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title | Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title_full | Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title_fullStr | Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title_short | Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
title_sort | comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513891/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744109 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S142556 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fangshirong comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy AT yangjinhong comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy AT songlei comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy AT jiangyan comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy AT liuyuxiu comparisonofthreetypesofcentralvenouscathetersinpatientswithmalignanttumorreceivingchemotherapy |